Dismissed

Yogesh Patel v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2009WPS/5510/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by a teacher. Petitioner sought withdrawal with liberty to make representation. High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach authorities, noting 6+4 months timeline for decision, while clarifying no comment on merits.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawn as filed; liberty to make representation; direction to authority to decide representation within six months (extendable to four months).

Yogesh Patel Vs State of C.G. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

(Jim/a)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ petition (S) No.55/o £007

¶3

PETITIONER

¶4

.
‘ o .. a.
‘Ogw(‘\£(
$$Ga$$
Q.
get}
Q‘ é)
out
1.

¶5

¶6

¶7

Yogesh Patel, aged about 43 years,^{S/oShriJawaharLal} Patel, Assistant Teacher Govt. Higher Secondary School Nandeli, Block Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh,

¶10

Through Secreta ry, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ,, Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District, Raipur (C.G.) / Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigah District Raigarh, (C.G.)

¶11

Block Education Officer, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE

¶15

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶16

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

As mentioned in the Cause title.

¶18

.N°551® . m 2063/

¶19

mam (We)

¶20

mmm WMvww‘m $a~fmawé¥r 5.3: HON’BLE^{JUSTICEMR.PRI'I} 'INKER DIWAKER‘ 03-08-2009: Shri Anil Mourya,^counsetfo the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey,^PanelLa er for the State. At the outset counsel for e petitioner^{submitsthathewanwto} withdraw this petition with liberty o make representation^{totheauthority} concerned. He also seeks a di ction to the concerned authority for deciding the^{representationof the} titioner at an early^{dateasaccordingto} him case of the petitioner^issquar ly covered with^theorder passed^inwrit petition (S)^{No.4248/2008.} Counsel for the^responden State submits that^{atthisstagehecan} not make any^{statementbeforeth} i Court whether^caseofthe petitioner^is covered with^theorder passed^{inaorementionodwritpetition.However,he} submits that if the petitioner^maes a representation to the conoerned respondent, the^{sameshallbedeci} ed strictly in accordance^withlaw. Accordingly, the petition is ismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. lf the petitioner mak a represenwion to the concerned respondent^withina period^{of Mo} onths from the^{dateofreceiptofcopyof} this order, the^{sameisexpectedto} decided within^afurther period^offour months from^{thedateofitsreceipt.} It is made clear^thatthis rt has not commented^{onthemeritsof} the case and^{theauthoritiesagesto} decide the^{representationofthe} petitioner^{strictlyinaccordancewitt‘law.} Sd/— li Pritinker^Diwaer k Judge

Yogesh Patel v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Patel v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansharan Gangrale Vs Accountant General C.G. and Ors.

Triyugi Narayan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sunanda Bandopadhayay Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ano.

Thakur Ram Barle Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku.Samsa Begam Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.